This comes to me from actor Frances Fisher who sits on the Screen Actors Guild National Board. Already opining have been thesps Amy Brenneman (pro), Ron Livingston (anti), and Ned Vaughn (pro) about the SAG petition drive lobbying for an earnings threshold requirement for ”qualified voting” on SAG contract issues:
“I find it interesting that this issue is being ressurected publicly at a time that our Guild members should be united as we prepare for our TV/Theatrical negotiations.
“What about Aftra? How come there is no push to qualify Aftra members ‘affected’ by the upcoming TV/Theatrical contract? Could it be that Aftra doesn’t have a dog in the hunt?
“I find it quite interesting that Aftra does less than 10% of the TV/Theatrical contract, and that nobody is holding them to the same standards. .
“According to Phase 1, the joint bargaining agreement between SAG and Aftra, the negotiating committee is seated 50-50. That means Aftra votes on this contract, (and does NO film, has three Primetime TV contracts,) yet they have a 50% say in how the negotiations go. How “affected” are they? Do you think weathermen and sportscasters and game show hosts and newscasters give a rat’s ass about TV/Theatrical when they get their ballot?
“Why aren’t these SAG petition signers up in arms about that?
“We are in serious W&W meetings through the rest of this month. I urge our members to come to the Guild at 5757 Wilshire Blvd., and participate in our deliberations.
“Yes, I hear you now. Many of us are dual card holders; but Aftra as an institution does not do the work in the TV/Theatrical contract. Excuse me; they do less than 10%.
“If these petition signers are truly intersted in getting a fair contract — and as my friend Amy Brenneman says, ‘How hard will they fight to get actors a better deal?’ I ask you this: How hard will the Aftra portion of the negotiating committee fight, since they only bring in less than 10% of the earnings? And will the weathermen, etc…vote for what actors need?
“I agree that Vanity Card holders should be looked at: (people who hold a card but do not work the contract at all). I submit that we must look at our own SAG Board of Directors, and hold them to the same standards. We have people on our board who have no credits on IMDB; should they be making policy for our Guild with regard to TV/Theatrical?
“And to the person who took a stab at Hollywood: look up the credits of our Hollywood Board, and see who represents you: working actors like Kent McCord, Anne Marie Johnson, Valerie Harper, Rene Taylor, Joe Bologna, Lainie Kazan, France Nuyen, Diane Ladd, Justine Bateman, William Russ, Joanna Cassidy, Anne DeSalvo, George Coe, Michael Bell, Seymour Cassel, Brett Cullen, Anthony DeSantis, Leigh French, Elliot Gould, Robert Hays, David Jolliffe, Nancy Sinatra, Piper Laurie, Paul Napier, William Mapother, Russell McConnell, Peggy Miley, Esai Morales, Barbara Niven, Susan Savage, Connie Stevens, JoBeth Williams, Angel Tompkins, William Mapother, William Katt, Bonnie Bartlett, Scott Wilson, me, and the list goes on. Check out our credits on www.imdb.com.
“I submit that any member of Screen Actors Guild, because they are actors, and are seeking work, be allowed to vote on any and all contracts, because they may get a contract at any time that flips them into getting a leg-up.
“Would you disqualify Gloria Stuart, who is basically a founding member of our Guild, who did not work for decades, and who got a job in Titanic in her 80’s and subsequently was nominated for an Academy Award, and won a SAG Award?
“And don’t get me started on the Basic-Cable contracts…
“Hi didely dee, the actors’ life for me.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







While the “900 ” names ( which I have yet to see ) may have their own interests to protect, they are also the reason that no one wants a strike. In this instance, SAG is in the best position to negotiate. The AMPTP doesn’t really have to care about “faceless” writers, but they do love their stars. And apparently their Oscars.
Gotta go with Ron Livingston on the voting. While Amy Brenneman makes some very good points ( like people voting against a strike to protect their crew or office jobs), I don’t see a way to make this fair. I think that most union people would agree to some kind of “qualified/affected” voting as long as that definition included them.
So where to draw that line? How to make this fair? Would our government require some “income” level before we cast a vote for the president of the United States? Some divisive way to better protect the outcome? No, of course not, and why should we ? Aren’t taxes and dues just “membership fees” in a way? Can’t take the dues money and take away your vote. Unless of course, you care to send me ( and any one you deny a vote) a refund as part of a strike/stimulus package.
I’ll look for the check in the mail.
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
p.s. Frances Fisher, I couldn’t agree more and thank you for all that you do for this union and for people like me. Thanks for giving me a voice.
Muronao,
I think my comment about the board members was” diss lite”. My point is that most of them read as a “remember them?” So, that point leads to…. they are board members, who if some SAG members have their way, won’t be able to vote…..because they haven’t worked. My feeling is… anyone who belongs to a union and their dues are up to date, has the right to vote, and if any SAG members are trying to allow only certain members that right… then they are “elite”. All of us just got over the writers strike, instead of SAG airing their infighting for all to see, RE: AMPTP, I would like to see them get a game plan, start talks with the asshole AMPTP and not have this town face another strike. Having said that, the writers got screwed, which was heartbreaking, the DGA, well what can one say, SAG, god help them had better have their game plan locked down solid. I wrote that I wouldn’t honor their picket line, that was a lie on my part, I’m just sick of all this. If SAG goes on strike I will be O.K. financially….But it would be the financial end for alot of people, 2 strikes would be 2much.
Ah, I take your point, it’s just that well, someimes the whole “has-been” thing can be a sensitive issue.
Unfortunately, I fear that disenfranchising board members might be part of the reason for this campaign (not for everybody, but I wouldn’t totally discount it as a motive). If you can’t beat ‘em or can’t even be bothered to try, then try to change the rules to make it easier for you to win without needing a whole lot of votes or effort. I hope that’s just me being a conspiracy theorist, but some of the hostility that’s been expressed makes me wonder. I agree with you 100%.